Editorial: Planning by fait accompli
Every new decision will confirm what many already believe: that the rules exist, but not everyone is expected to follow them
On July 16, the Planning Authority took two separate decisions that will have consequences for years to come and cement the public perception that Malta’s planning system cannot be trusted.
The first was the sanctioning of 20 padel courts built without permission on Manoel Island, together with the approval for another 10. The second was the green light to revised plans for a 77-room lateral extension to the Grand Hotel Excelsior in Floriana.
The cases are different, but they expose the same weakness of build first, argue later.
The proposed sanctioning charge for 20 illegally built padel courts was €900, a figure the Planning Authority chair himself called ridiculous. The board then imposed a €25,000 planning-gain contribution and approved the development. For a commercial project of this scale, this is scandalous to say the least.
The Ombudsman has already warned that the €50,000 cap on daily planning penalties, fixed in 2012, no longer deters large or persistent illegal development. That warning, made last year, has still not produced the reform required, and enforcement continues to be weakened by delay, negotiation and retrospective permission.
Having more sports facilities in a country that has an obesity problem is laudable. What is not welcome is the PA board’s decision to approve the permit without making clear that it would create no future claim when a new master plan for the promised public park is drawn up.
This flies in the face of the government’s promise to turn Manoel Island into a national park designed “inclusively” and “transparently by the people and for the people”.
Yet before that public vision has been settled, a substantial commercial use has been allowed to establish itself. Was the island taken back for the public, or merely so its future could be divided among different private interests?
Tigné Point should offer a clear warning of where this leads. Its public walkway and belvedere have been closed since September 2024 while MIDI and the Lands Authority argue over who must pay to repair the deteriorated bridge.
The land was developed and the private value created, but responsibility for maintaining the public part was left in limbo… and the public left fuming behind a fence.
The Excelsior decision, although different in nature, belongs to the same story of surrender to the fait accompli; a planning legacy embedded in the island’s history.
As far back as the 1960s, when the Excelsior tore through the Floriana fortifications, Din l-Art Ħelwa warned that without a published master plan and public scrutiny, Malta would face “a series of faits accomplis by those who can manoeuvre better in the tactical struggle”.
Decades later, instead of treating that scar as a reason for restraint, the Planning Authority approved another extension. The proposal was reduced from its original scale, and a heritage impact assessment described its effects as ranging from negligible to moderate and ultimately “acceptable”. But is “acceptable” now to become our automatic standard for every further intrusion around a world heritage site?
How many more years must the public wait before a government, of whichever party, takes the bold decision to build a strong authority that truly protects our limited public land and heritage?
Until that happens, the public will continue to hear the same excuses: the development is already there, the impact can be mitigated, the fine has been paid and the damage is acceptable.
At some point, the government must stop managing the consequences and start preventing them. Otherwise, every new decision will confirm what many already believe: that the rules exist, but not everyone is expected to follow them.